Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission
of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.
we can see that concept C1 of ontology O2 is redefined in ontologies O4, O5, and
O8. C1 contributes to a conflict situation in O9, but C3 is well defined in O9.
We have the following methods to solve the conflict problem.
1. Redefining (or overriding)
The C2 in O9 and O2 in Figure 9 have the same name, thus it may be a conflict.
However, if C2 in O9 is defined to override the C2 in O2, and redefined C2 with
different meaning, then there are no conflicts.
2. Explicitly selecting or renaming
We use an example to show how to use explicitly selecting or renaming to solve
conflicts.
Example.9. If the two C4 in O3 and O1 of Figure 9 have the different semantics,
there will be a conflict in O9. To solve this conflict, we have two options. The first
option has the ontology designer explicitly mention that the C4 in O9 is inherited
from the C4 in O3. However, explicitly selecting has a problem, that is, some
Figure 9. Conflicts in ontology design
O5
O6
O9
O3
C1 O7 O8
C1
C1 C2
C1
C3
C2
C4
O2
O1
O4
C4
L and L ng
Copyright ?© 2007, Idea Group Inc.
Pages:
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482